They're actually getting physical with their shields? Now that's something I haven't seen since I was in ARMA some years ago. No leg strikes or tackling that I saw from that promo, but I guess that's probably for the best (lots more injuries that way).

Looking at the team roster. Lot of guys are 6'4" and 240lbs, plus a handful of guys that are bigger. Guess you have to has some girth to wear the armor and wield the sword.

Makes sense that they'd have guys with football player frames. Speaking from experience, the added height and weight can be quite a boon when it comes to getting leverage on your opponent (especially if you're half-swording at close quarters).

Typical French. "Battle of Nations" with teams from 22 countries, yet the website is only in French.

And yet, somehow the promotional video title is written in ENGLISH. And the feed has French and English spoken in it.

Maybe you should look for another feed. After all, it's completely unreasonable for the French to put French on a site devoted to a competition that's being held in France. -/ sarcasm-

I read the US site, but it's really a team site. It doesn't have, for example, a page that says "here's what the BoN is all about." The BoN site appears to be focused on the BoN rather than the French team. I can't find anything about the "local" team. I do see pages about the combats, the other things going on, and ticket sales. Those seem like the sort of thing you might make available to people in the other 21 countries, some of whom are in easy driving range to attend.

Looking at the team roster. Lot of guys are 6'4" and 240lbs, plus a handful of guys that are bigger. Guess you have to has some girth to wear the armor and wield the sword.

I don't know about that since the average medieval European knight was evidently in the mid 5-foot range, but that aside, it makes sense to me that these guys are all huge. Height and size is huge advantage in any kind of physical combat/fight.

Very interesting. I'm assuming its limited to melee weapons? Medieval Europe equipment only? I would love to see the team that Japan is fielding if not.

Why? A Japanese team wielding Japanese weapons would easily get curb-stomped.

Yes. Every Japanese team member would die and fail to advance. But each of their opponents would also die.

At least if these were fully-edged weapons, which they don't appear to be, judging from the lack of blood, guts, and bodies on the ground.

In practice, this is a sport, governed by rules and conventions. I don't know the exact rules for BoN, but in SCA heavy combat you do see people in full Japanese style armor. It provides no inherent advantage or disadvantage within the rules framework. Arguments about whether a katana can slice through late period plate armor are moot.

At least if these were fully-edged weapons, which they don't appear to be, judging from the lack of blood, guts, and bodies on the ground.

In practice, this is a sport, governed by rules and conventions. I don't know the exact rules for BoN, but in SCA heavy combat you do see people in full Japanese style armor. It provides no inherent advantage or disadvantage within the rules framework. Arguments about whether a katana can slice through late period plate armor are moot.[/quote]

They can't and why would that be moot? The finest edged weapons in the world were terrible at cutting through metal armor, which is why when heavily armored guys went at it (which they usually didn't) from Europe to the mid-East to China, they did it with blunt, percussive weapons. Or pick type things meant to get through the joints.

The Japanese, who carried out their warfare in extreme isolation, were one of the groups that never got the worldwide memo regarding differing forms of warfare. Like the shield. From Korea to England, people who actually fought different cultures got the memo real fast. Japanese, not so much.

I feel the same way -- I just learned recently that full-contact medieval jousting/fighting tournaments have been a popular international sport for at least a few years. I can't figure out why our media hasn't bothered to cover it, either by showing the ongoing competitions as sports or capitalizing on it with a reality/competition show.

I'm disappointed. I watched a few videos. Most of them contained no combat whatsoever. 2 of them were one-on-one matches of men fighting each other like pansies with swords, totaling maybe 30 seconds of actual combat. Meh. It didn't look professional at all to me. It looks amateurish, like kids heading out into the woods to play a private game of paintball or something. Did I miss something or fail to click on the special, hidden link that takes you to the real vids? Eh. If there truly is some real content out there, lemme tell ya, I'd like to see how Israel fares. Also, Russia with their Spetsnaz.

I'm disappointed. I watched a few videos. Most of them contained no combat whatsoever. 2 of them were one-on-one matches of men fighting each other like pansies with swords, totaling maybe 30 seconds of actual combat. Meh. It didn't look professional at all to me. It looks amateurish, like kids heading out into the woods to play a private game of paintball or something. Did I miss something or fail to click on the special, hidden link that takes you to the real vids? Eh.

I found quite a few on YouTube. To me, these look quite a bit like how I'd imagine medieval combat to be.

The Japanese, who carried out their warfare in extreme isolation, were one of the groups that never got the worldwide memo regarding differing forms of warfare. Like the shield. From Korea to England, people who actually fought different cultures got the memo real fast. Japanese, not so much.

The Koreans and Chinese who spent a centuries dealing with the wako (wokou, or Japanese pirates) in the middle ages, not to mention the Mongols who tried to invade Japan, would be surprised to hear that the Japanese never fought anyone else.

In fact, the Japanese knew full well about shields. Stationary shields were common, and infantry formations often had dedicated shield holders supplementing the pikesmen/bowmen. They also had plenty of exposure to shields from the Chinese and Korean soldiers who tried (usually unsuccessfully) to stop the piracy. Possible reasons for why hand shields never became popular in Japan are:

1) The Japanese infantrymen used bows, naginata, and later very long pikes, none of which are conducive to holding shields. (In case you're wondering, the katana was strictly an emergency weapon, just like pistols.) The extra offensive capability was apparently considered more important than defensive.2) Japanese composite armor was much stronger than the chain mail originally used by the Europeans. These offered good protection for anything less powerful than arquebus shots, which is difficult to defend against with any sort of hand shield available in the day. When the Europeans invented plate armor, they too started downsizing or eliminating shields.3) By all accounts, the continental soldiers (who did use shields) were no match for the shieldless wako pirates. So why change to a weaker option?

I'm disappointed. I watched a few videos. Most of them contained no combat whatsoever. 2 of them were one-on-one matches of men fighting each other like pansies with swords, totaling maybe 30 seconds of actual combat. Meh. It didn't look professional at all to me. It looks amateurish, like kids heading out into the woods to play a private game of paintball or something. Did I miss something or fail to click on the special, hidden link that takes you to the real vids? Eh. If there truly is some real content out there, lemme tell ya, I'd like to see how Israel fares. Also, Russia with their Spetsnaz.

What were you expecting? I don't think that actual combat would be much more than what we're seeing here. Armor is heavy, fights would have to be short. People, even the greatest knights, weren't on nutritional regimens with strength and conditioning coaches. This isn't fencing either. It's a lot of brute strength with uncontrollable swings.

Actual combat obviously would be bloodier, with a lot of screaming, but I don't think it would be more "professional".

The only country in world history that has a war record of 1-15. With their only war won being the French Revolution, which by a happy chance was a war composed of only French on both sides. Which in theory means that they both lost and won the French Revolution, so if I was an asshole I could say the French have never in history won a legitament war that was against any formidable opponent. By the way, in America if you don't finish first your last. So.....ties don't count.- Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian. Or at ths time in history, a Roman -ed.

- Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.

- Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

- Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

- Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

- War of Revolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

- The Dutch War - Tied

- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War - Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

- War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

- American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

- French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

- The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

- The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

- World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States Entering the war late -ed.. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

- World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

- War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu

- Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

I'm disappointed. I watched a few videos. Most of them contained no combat whatsoever. 2 of them were one-on-one matches of men fighting each other like pansies with swords, totaling maybe 30 seconds of actual combat. Meh. It didn't look professional at all to me. It looks amateurish, like kids heading out into the woods to play a private game of paintball or something. Did I miss something or fail to click on the special, hidden link that takes you to the real vids? Eh. If there truly is some real content out there, lemme tell ya, I'd like to see how Israel fares. Also, Russia with their Spetsnaz.

The video embedded in the article seems to have quite a lot of combat. I don't know what you were expecting. From accounts I've read 1v1 mortal combat between fully armored soldiers was ponderously slow and boring. Most time was spent looking for an opening to attack. There was much shoving and kicking, and the big knob on the butt of the sword wasn't for decoration. In the short time I watched so far I saw a couple of guys go to their knees after being hit on the head. That's about as real as you get without killing somebody.I suppose mass melee was much different, but 1v1 was all about forcing your enemy to submit while preserving your important body parts.